In Re: Plagiarism Charges Against Justice Mariano Del Castillo (2011)

FACTS:

The Malaya Lolas received an adverse decision in the case Vinuya vs Romulo decided
by the Supreme Court on April 28, 2010. The Malaya Lolas sought the annulment of
said decision due to the alleged irregularity in the writing of the text of the decision.
Allegedly, the ponente of said case, Justice Mariano del Castillo copied verbatim
portions of the decision laid down in said case from three works by three foreign authors
without acknowledging said authors hence an overt act of plagiarism which is highly
reprehensible.

Plagiarism as defined by Blacks Law Dictionary is the deliberate and knowing

presentation of another persons original ideas or creative expressions as ones own.

ISSUE: Whether or not plagiarism is applicable to decisions promulgated by the

Supreme Court.

HELD: No. It has been a long standing practice in this jurisdiction not to cite or
acknowledge the originators of passages and views found in the Supreme Courts
decisions. These omissions are true for many of the decisions that have been penned
and are being penned daily by magistrates from the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts nationwide and
with them, the municipal trial courts and other first level courts. Never in the judiciarys
more than 100 years of history has the lack of attribution been regarded and demeaned
as plagiarism.

As put by one author (this time acknowledged by the Court), Joyce C. George from her
Judicial Opinion Writing Handbook:

A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a

charge of plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article,
novel thoughts published in a legal periodical or language from a partys brief are
used without giving attribution. Thus judges are free to use whatever sources
they deem appropriate to resolve the matter before them, without fear of
reprisal. This exemption applies to judicial writings intended to decide cases for
two reasons: the judge is not writing a literary work and, more importantly, the
purpose of the writing is to resolve a dispute. As a result, judges adjudicating
cases are not subject to a claim of legal plagiarism.

Further, as found by the Supreme Court, the omission of the acknowledgment by

Justice del Castillo of the three foreign authors arose from a clerical error. It was shown
before the Supreme Court that the researcher who finalized the draft written by Justice
del Castillo accidentally deleted the citations/acknowledgements; that in all, there is still
an intent to acknowledge and not take such passages as that of Justice del Castillos
own.

TANADA v. ANGARA

Facts :
This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein
respondents acting in their capacities as Senators via signing the said agreement.

The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners,
through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial
products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty
associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted
benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a free
market espoused by WTO.

Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts
and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First
policy of the Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.

Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said
WTO agreement.

Held:

In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and
adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with
all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted
principles of international law, which are considered automatically part of our own laws.
Pacta sunt servanda international agreements must be performed in good faith. A
treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the
parties.
Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as
absolute because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as
when Philippines joined the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty
right under the concept of sovereignty as autolimitation. What Senate did was a valid
exercise of authority. As to determine whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable
is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the said agreement
is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows withdrawal of membership should this be
the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be viewed as a limitation of
economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading
and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its alternative is
isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed,
through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.

Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.